Harry Greb,why do people rank a man they have never seen fight so high?

Yeah they dont fight as often , they dont fight as many rounds, fights are stopped far quicker, boxers today have more time to recover, the P4P all time are still old timers

all these heavyweights today would smash ali etc etc

:hi:

 

larry for **** sakes Greb is one of the baddest mother ****ers ever.

 

I`ll never forget what you said years ago on here, I actually took it as a signature for a few months it was that good... `Greb wouldn`t even get a title shot today`

Comedy Gold

 

a hurp derp his record was great but I need film.

 

This content is protected

 

Lol, ok tough guy!

 

I never saw Washington or Lincoln but I know they were great presidents.

 

That's your opinion and its cool by me. But that doesn't mean he wasn't great or the opinions of others who did see and/or fought him should be thrown to the wayside.

 

He wouldn't, he'd get bombed out by any fighter better than club level. You guys can say whatever **** you want, WE HAVE TAPE. Mickey Walker was a WW who fought for the HW title... could SRL have done that? **** no, and it's not because Walker is better, it's because the fighters weren't nearly as efficient.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_Avjlmtni0&feature=related[/ame]

Who the **** is Ketchel or Papke going to beat today? I could count the number of middleweights I've seen on undercards they could beat on one hand.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFdL5VkcQM&feature=related[/ame]

Have you ever seen ANY heavyweight on TV who wouldn't smash Corbett or Fitzsimmons? No, you have not.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMA6Pd6tT3Q[/ame]

Harry Greb sparring. Now how ****ing long does this guy last with Nard? Or Roy Jones? Not very ****ing long.

Boxing is a sport, just like swimming, just like running, just like cycling, just like football. None of those legends from the other sports could hang with your average top high school athlete from today. Boxers could only fight 20+ rounds today if both fighters hit like Paulie Malignaggi, because with today's better technique they can and will put something on your chin much sooner.

Arguing that these guys could hang today is just ******ed.

 

That last part of your argument highlights the conflict; it's not simply about running faster or jumping higher or throwing farther, or hitting harder, it's about the conventions for technique. I can understand early 20th century fighters, due to the nature of the sport having changed a considerable amount, being hard to imagine competing against recent greats, but there is a wealth of fighters who historically have shown stronger eras in the conventions of boxing than they do today. There is no reason to believe boxing has evolved on a continuous upward slope when contenders and journeymen are less well-rounded and champions are much less fundamentally sound than those of decades past.

If you simply can't rank a man you've never seen fight, then you're not focusing on resume and isn't interested in honest evaluations of accomplishments in the sport. Again, if someone swept in and beat Marquez, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Cotto, and Martinez within the last-next few years, I wouldn't have to see him fight to know he was extremely accomplished and rate his victories accordingly. The performances are harder to assess, but their accomplishments still deserve to be ranked no matter how crude or ugly or pretty or quick he looks. Would you deny Usain Bolt broke a record simply because you never saw it happen?

 

sure sure... and let's just ignore the fact that you just saw with YOUR OWN ****ING EYES how crude and amateurish these guys are by today's standards. That didn't just happen at all.

 

it is no exaggeration to say that Harry Greb has the greatest resume in the history of the sport.

he didn't achieve as much as Armstrong and obviously we'll never know if he looked as good as Sugar Ray does on film.

Ranking this man in anything other than the highest tier speaks volumes of ignorance.